in getting several essays by Cleaver published in Ramparts, an influential left-wing magazine. These essays, in turn, had built support for Cleaver’s cause among members of the U.S. intellectual community, including writer Nor- man Mailer. The support of such intellectuals helped persuade the parole board to release Cleaver from prison. After his parole Cleaver began writing for Ramparts. In 1967, while living in the San Francisco Bay area, Cleaver married Kathleen Neal, who had been an activist with the STUDENT NONVIOLENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE (SNCC). In that same year, he befriended HUEY P. NEWTON and Bobby Seale, cofounders of the Black Panthers, and he soon became that group’s minister of information. The Black Panthers was an African American political organization that sought to defend the African American community from police intimidation and vio- lence. As part of their SELF-DEFENSE actions, Black Panthers carried guns and law books, followed police cars, and observed police encounters with African Americans. As a spokesperson for the Panthers, Cleaver explained the group’s goals and ideas to the rest of the world. In media interviews, for example, he described how “Pig Power” or “the Gestapo power of the police” contributed to many of the problems in the African American community. In February 1968 Cleaver published Soul on Ice, the book that made him a celebrity. It quickly became a best-seller and was named Book of the Year by the New York Times. The book begins with the observation that Cleaver’s first year in prison, 1954, coincided with that of the landmark Supreme Court case BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, the first significant legal victory African Americans achieved in the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. The book explores, among its many topics, Cleaver’s relationship to Malcolm X, Cleaver’s rejection of U.S. capitalism, the solidarity between African Americans and citizens of third-world countries, the relationship between sexuality and race in the United States, and Cleaver’s admiration of the student movement of the 1960s. The book also deals with themes that came to dominate African American political activism of the time: racial pride, rejection of white standards of beauty, and acceptance of violence as a necessary part of political struggle. In his essay “Domestic Law and Interna- tional Order,” Cleaver reflected on the situation of African Americans in light of the VIETNAM WAR and of the suppression of the Watts riots of 1965 by the NATIONAL GUARD. For Cleaver, both these events were examples of U.S. imperialism, with the U.S. army in Vietnam and the police in Watts acting as essentially identical agents of state COERCION over colonized peoples: The police do on the domestic level what the armed forces do on the international level: protect the way of life of those in power. The police patrol the city, cordon off communi- ties, blockade neighborhoods, invade homes, search for that which is hidden. The armed forces patrol the world, invade countries and continents, cordon off nations, blockade islands and whole peoples.… The policeman and the soldier will have the last word. Accordingly, Cleaver called for African Americans, “who in this land of private property have all private and no property,” to oppose this system and fight for power and property. The success of Soul on Ice, combined with a vacuum in African American leadership caused by the assassinations of MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr. and Malcolm X, and the imprisonment of other leaders such as Newton, made Cleaver seem for a brief time to be an important African American leader. In the spring of 1968 he was nominated for the pre sidency of the United States by the white radical Peace and Freedom party. During his candidacy he spoke out for a revolutionary movement that involved both blacks and whites. He received 30,000 votes nationally. Cleaver’s time in the spotlight was cut short as a result of violence that erupted between the police and the Panthers. On April 6, 1968,—two days after the assassination of King—Cleaver was involved in a shoot-out with the police in which one Black Panther was killed. Cleaver was arrested, but two months later was released on a writ of HABEAS CORPUS (release from unlawful imprisonment). A higher court later reversed his release and scheduled him for reincarcera- tion in November 1968. Cleaver chose to become a fugitive from the law and fled to Cuba. Cleaver’s exile overseas was accompanied by a rapid decline in his influence as both a political and intellectual leader. His short stay in Cuba was followed by stints in Algeria, North WHAT WE’RE SAYING TODAY IS THAT YOU ’RE EITHER PART OF THE SOLUTION OR YOU ’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM . —LEROY CLEAVER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 458 CLEAVER, LEROY ELDRIDGE Korea, and Paris. He continued to speak out as a revolutionary during his time overseas. Some- times his revolutionary efforts were in the sartorial rather than political sphere, as in 1975 when he attempted to publicize his design for Cleavers, a new type of pants that featured a codpiece intended to display the male sexual organ. The new pants would, he theorized, revolutionize sexual attitudes in a way that would ultimately eliminate such crimes as rape. They would also, Cleaver said, “abolish … the crime of indecent exposure” and replace it with “decent exposure.” After he had lived for several years in communist countries, Cleaver’s political radi- calism began to wane and he became more conservative in his beliefs. Eventually, he could no longer abide life away from the United States, and by the mid-1970s Cleaver began to voice a different view of his native country. In 1975 he returned to the States where he was immediately put in prison. “I’d rather be in jail in America than free anywhere else,” Cleaver commented after his return. Cleaver’s subsequent career in the United States was marked by a series of unsuccessful ventures as he has tried to regain the spotlight. While in jail in 1976 he announced that he was a born-again Christian and renounced the Marxism-Leninism and atheism of his Black Panther days. After his release on bail he began a short career as leader of a religious revivalist movement, the Eldridge Cleaver Crusades. In 1980 he attempted to create a new church called “Christlam”, a synthesis of Christianity and Islam. He also dabbled with Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church and the MORMON CHURCH becoming, for a short period, a Black Mormon. Cleaver was a perennially unsuccessful candidate for political office, running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1984 and for the U.S. Senate in 1986. In the second race he campaigned as a conservative Republican, the ultimate rebuke to his earlier radica lism. Cleaver continued to have run-ins with the law. In 1987 he was arrested for cocaine possession and the following year he was arrested for theft from a residence. He was ordered to make RESTITUTION and was placed on parole for three years. Also in 1987, the Cleavers divorced. Cleaver was again arrested for cocaine possession in 1992, but the charges were dropped, and in 1994 he was seriously injured by a blow to the head from a fellow drug addict. In the mid-1990s Cleaver was owner of a recycling company in Oakland and a lecturer. Cleaver started work in February 1998 as a consultant to the Coalition for Diversity at the University of LaVerne located in southern California. A few months later, however, on May 1, 1998, he died in Pomona, California. Although his public career was a mixed success, Cleaver’s writings and activities have affected U.S. politics and culture. Besides Soul on Ice, his books include Eldridge Cleaver: Post- Prison Writings and Speeches (1969) and Soul on Fire (1978). And despite his later rejection of many of the Black Panther beliefs, Cleaver viewed that group’s legacy as beneficial. “The Black Panther Party,” he said, “played a very positive role at a decisive moment toward the liberation of Black people in America.” FURTHER READINGS Cleaver, Eldridge. 1968. Soul on Ice. New York: Sal-Van. Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. 1998. “The Two Nations of Black America.” 1998. Interview with Eldridge Cleaver. PBS Frontline. Available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/shows/race/interviews/ecleaver.html; website home page: http://www.pbs.org (accessed July 12, 2009). Rout, Kathleen. 1991. Eldridge Cleaver. Boston: Twayne. CLEMENCY Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner. CLEMENCY is considered to be an act of grace. It is based on the policy of fairness, justice, and forgiveness. It is not a right but rather a privilege, and one who is granted clemency does not have the crime forgotten, as in AMNESTY, but is forgiven and treated more leniently for the criminal acts. Clemency is similar to PARDON inasmuch as it is an act of grace exempting someone from punishment. COMMU- TATION of an offender’s sentence, however, is the lessening of the punishment based on the offender’s own good conduct subsequent to his conviction. Although clemency is a privilege and not a right, questions have arisen as to whether a prisoner sentenced to death is entitled to certain constitutional rights during a clemency pro- ceeding. States that impose the death penalty require a clemency review before a prisoner is GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CLEMENCY 459 executed. For example, Ohio requires the state PAROLE authority to conduct a clemency review 45 days before the date of EXECUTION and file its report with the governor. As part of the review the prisoner may request an interview with a parole board member but the prisoner does not have the right to have an attorney present. An Ohio death row inmate objec ted to the interview on two grounds, contending it violated his FIFTH AMENDMENT right against SELF-INCRIMINATION and his FOURTEENTH AMEND- MENT right to due process. He insisted that he should not have to make a choice between seeking clemency and remaining silent about the crime he had been convicted of, and of other crimes he may have committed. A federal appeals court agreed with the inmate that the process violated his Fifth Amendment right, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision in Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 118 S.Ct. 1244, 140 L.Ed.2d 387 (1998). The Supreme Court found that the inmate did not have any due process rights because clemency could only be given at the discretion of the governor. Moreover, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, not the judicial branch, conducted the process. In addition, the Court cited prior rulings where it had stated that pardon and commutation proceedings have not traditionally been the business of courts and are rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for JUDICIAL REVIEW.Asto the Fifth Amendment ARGUMENT, the Court ruled that the inmate had to exercise the same choice he had made at trial: to testify or to remain silent. In the Ohio clemency process, the inmate has a choice of providing information—at the risk of damaging his case for clemency or for post-conviction relief—or of remaining silent. Acts of clemency are usually issued in isolated cases. In 2002, however, outgoing governor George Ryan announced that he had concerns about the fairness of Illinois judicial proceedings against 160 death row inmates, which compelled him to begin clemency review proceedings into their crimes. During the fall of 2002 a special review board conducted public hearings and private review s concerning each inmate’s case. Relatives of victims gave emo- tional TESTIMONY, while attorneys for the inmates pointed out troubleso me charges, including the use of torture on suspects to make them confess. In January 2003 Governor Ryan took the unprecedented step of granting clemency to all the death row inmates. He pardoned four inmates who he believed were not GUILTY;the remainder of the inmates were given life sentences. Ryan concluded that the legal process surrounding CAPITAL PUNISHMENT had become so corrupted that he had no choice but to grant clemency. FURTHER READINGS Burnett, Cathleen. 2002. Justice Denied: Clemency Appeals in Death Penalty Cases. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press. Davey, Monica, and Steve Mills. “Ryan Issues Blanket Clemency.” Chicago Tribune (January 12, 2003). Gagne, Patricia. 1998. Battered Women’sJustice:TheMove- ment for Clemency and the Politics of Self-Defense. New York: Twayne. CROSS REFERENCES Due Process of Law ; Prisoners’ Rights. CLERGY MALPRACTICE Clergy malpractice is a breach of the duty owed by a member of the clergy (e.g., trust, loyalty, confidentiality, guidance) that results in harm or loss to his or her parishioner. A claim for clergy malpractice asserts that a member of the clergy should be held liable for professional misconduct or an unreasonable lack of competence in his or her capacity as a religious leader and counselor. Generally speaking, most clergy malpractice cases are couched in terms of TORT LAW as matters of alleged NEGLIGENCE, abuse of authority or power, inappropriate conduct, breach of confidentiality and trust, or incompetence. The claims assert that members of the clergy owe the same kind of duty to persons they serve as doctors owe to patients or lawyers owe to clients. Most licensed professionals in the secular world, including physicians, la wyers, and psychologists, may be held liable for negligence. Clergy members, however, are not licensed as professional counselors, making them accountable only to religious standards in many jurisdictions. Moreover, because the practice (or “free exercise”)of RELIGION is protected by the Constitution, which, under the FIRST AMENDMENT, requires SEPARATION of church and state, courts remain reluctant to apply secular laws to what they perceive as religious matters. For these and other social reasons, claims of clergy malpractice historically were relatively unproductive, with courts con- sistently ruling in favor of defendants. In the late 1990s, however, a rising number of sexual misconduct allegations surfaced in the Roman Catholic Church, which resulted in courts GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 460 CLERGY MALPRACTICE taking a closer look at the viability of such a legal premise. One of the earlier claims for clergy mal- practice was brought in Nally v. Grace Commu- nity Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278, 763 P.2d 948 (1988). In Nally, the parents of 24- year-old Kenneth Nally argued that pastors at Grace Community Church, in Sun Valley, California, were liable for his suicide in 1979. Nally’s parents maintained that chu rch pastors should have directed him to seek psychiatric care. Instead, the parents claimed the pastors may have actually encouraged Nally’s suicide by teaching him that taking his own life would not prevent his entrance into heaven. The ensuing LITIGATION extended over eight years. The final appeal to the California Supreme Court attracted about 1,500 churches and religious organizations that spoke out in support of Grace Community Church in seeking protection against tort claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amend- ment. But when the California Supreme Court finally dismissed the lawsuit on November 24, 1988, it did not directly address the First Amendment issue. In a 5-2 opinion the majority held that the clergy in this case were not licensed counselors and could not, there- fore, be held legally liable for failing to provide proper care for the people they had advised. The case established the principle that religious counseling need not abide by the same legal standards that apply in other professional areas. Another case in the 1980s elaborated on constitutional issues more fully than did Nally. In 1986, in Baumgartner v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, 141 Ill. App. 3d 898, 96 Ill. Dec. 114, 490 N.E.2d 1319 (1986), Mary Baumgart- ner brough t suit against the church for the WRONGFUL DEATH of her husband, John Baum- gartner, a Christian Scientist. The PLAINTIFF Baumgartner, the executor of the decedent’s estate, claimed that the First Church of Christ, Scientist had persuaded her husband from seeking medical treatment for his acute prosta- titis condition. The church allegedly informed him that he would die if he sought medical care and that he should instead practice the steps of Christian Science to cure his illness. Church representatives also convinced him to alter his will, leaving half of his multimillion-dollar estate to the Christian Science church. In addition to claims for wrongful death and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, Mary Baumgartner brought a claim for Christian Science malpractice. The substance of this complaint was that a member of the church and a church nurse had deviated from the standard of care o f an ordinary Christian Science practitioner and nurse when they treated the decedent. The Illinois Court of Appeals refused to rule on this claim, holding that the First Amendment to the Constitution allows on ly the church itself to determine whether there has been a deviation from the church’sreligious standards. The court held that the question of whether a practitioner of Christian Science deviated from the church’s standard of care was not a JUSTICIABLE controversy. In developing a theory of clergy malpractice, the court must determine what standard to apply. In typical negligence cases, defendants are held to a standard of care that would have been exercised by an ordinary REASONABLE PERSON under the circumstances. In profession al mal- practice cases, defendants are held to the same standard of care as would have been exercised by other licensed professionals acting under similar circumstances. However, there are no uniform standards of training, counseling, and competency common to clergy of all religions, and any attempt by a state government to impose common licensing, certification, or testing requirements upon ministers of all faiths may run afoul of the Free Exercise or Establish- ment Clauses of the First Amendment. A basic premise for tort liability—objectively verifiable and certified standards—is thus lacking. This problem was recognized by a New York appellate court in Langford v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 271 A.D.2d 494, 705 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y.A.D . 2d Dept. 2000), where the court upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a woman’s claim that her priest breached his FIDUCIARY duty by allowing counseling sessions to develop into a sexual relationship. The court ruled that any attempt to define the duty owed by a member of the clergy in this situation would foster excessive entanglement with reli- gion. For similar reasons, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld the dismissal of a RAPE case in which a woman accused the MORMON CHURCH of negligence for advising her to “forgive and forget” the childhood incident (Franco v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, 21 P.3d 198 [2001]). A 1991 Ohio case took a slightly different look at clergy malpractice claims. In Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St. 3d 56, 565 N.E.2d 584 (1991), GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CLERGY MALPRACTICE 461 Leroy Byrd and his wife, Garnet Byrd, brought suit against the church and its reverend for nonconsensual sex between the reverend and Garnet arising during marital counseling. The Byrds claimed clergy malpractice in addition to FRAUD, intentional infliction of emotional DISTRESS, and nonconsensual sexual conduct. The Ohio Supreme Court denied the clergy malpractice action, calling it a redundant claim. The court held that because the Byrds had not addressed any aspect of the clergy-communicant relation- ship that could not be redressed through general tort law, allowing them to recover under clergy malpractice would give them two recoveries for the same injury. It is important to remember, then, that in cases like Byrd where t he court rejects a claim for clergy malpractice on the grounds that other remedies in tort are available, the court is not denying a plaintiff redress. Instead, the court is saying that the plaintiff must bring the complaint under a differen t theory or doctrine of la w. The Byrd court, for example, said that the plaintiffs “havenotnamedanyactivityengagedinbythe DEFENDANT for which recovery in tort is not already available.” Instead, the court in structed the plaintiff that she should pursue available remedies under the traditional torts of BATTERY,fraud,and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, the fact that a court does not recognize a CAUSE OF ACTION for clergy malprac- tice in a particular case does not mean that the jurisdiction provides no means of redress for parishioners harmed by the clergy. For example, during the early 2000s, thousands of CHILD ABUSE and CHILD MOLESTATION compl aints were brought against various dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Instead of relying on claims for clergy malpractice in going forward with their claims, the victims asserted conventional tort claims against the defendant dioceses, including claims for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. FURTHER READINGS Burge, Kathleen. 2003. “Judge Rules Church Suits Can Proceed.” Boston Globe (February 20). “‘Clergy Malpractice’ Cases.” October 3, 2002. ABCnews. com. Available online at more.abcnews.go.com/sections/ primetime/dailynews/clergy_malpractice_sidebar_ 021003. html (accessed June 17, 2003). Fain, Constance F. 1991. “Clergy Malpractice: Liability for Negligent Counseling and Sexual Misconduct.” Mississippi College Law Review (fall). Graziano, Sue G. 1991. “Clergy Malpractice.” Whittier Law Review. Herman, Mark. 2009. “The Liability of Clergy for the Acts of Their Congregants.” Georgetown Law Journal. 98 (November). Malony, H. Newton. 1986. Clergy Malpractice. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. McMenamin, Robert W. 1986. Clergy Malpractice. Buffalo, NY: Hein. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2002. “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.” Available online at www.usccb.org/bishops/ charter.htm (accessed June 17, 2003). CROSS REFERENCES Child Abuse; Child Molestation; Religion. CLERICAL ERROR A mistake made in a letter, paper, or document that changes its meaning, such as a typographical error or the unintentional addition or omission of a word, phrase, or figure. A mistake of this kind is a result of an oversight. Such an error was mistakenly, not purposely, written and should be readily remedied without objection. If the amount of money owed a PLAINTIFF by the DEFENDANT is mistakenly recorded by a COURT REPORTER as being $50 rather than $500, then the plaintiff is not bound by this since it is only a CLERICAL ERROR . An error of this nature can be rectified by the court acting SUA SPONTE, on its own, or on the MOTION of either party once the court learns of the error. A clerical misprision is FRAUD that is perpe- trated by the clerk of the court and may be readily discerned by examining the record. Such an error can only be corrected from informa- tion that appears elsewhere in the record and not from memory by the judge or clerk or by outside TESTIMONY. CLERK A person employed in an office or government agency who performs various tasks such as keeping records or accounts, filing, letter writing, or transcribing. One who works in a store and whose job might include working as a cashier, selling merchandise, or waiting on customers. A law clerk is either a law student employed by a licensed attorney to do mundane legal tasks and learn the law in the process, or a licensed lawyer working for a judge to aid in the writing and research of the cases before the judge. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 462 CLERICAL ERROR v CLEVELAND, STEPHEN GROVER Grover Cleveland was born STEPHEN GROVER CLEVELAND on March 18, 1837, in Caldwell, New Jersey. He pursued legal studies in Buffalo, was admitted to the bar in 1859, and established his law practice in Buffalo. He was subsequently granted a doctor of laws degree from Princeton University in 1897. From 1863 to 1866 Cleveland performed the duties of assistant DISTRICT ATTORNEY of Erie County, New York, and, four years later, served as sheriff for three years. He entered politics in 1881 with his election as mayor of Buffa lo and gained public attention with his f orceful policy against cor ruption in the Buffalo government. In 1882 he became governor of New York and, for the next two years, achieved prominence for his reform policies. Cleveland was elected to the presidency of the United States in 1884. He advocated CIVIL SERVICE reforms and less stringent tariffs on foreign commerce and opposed excessive pen- sions awarded to Civil War veterans. He ran for reelection in 1888 against BENJAMIN HARRISON but lost. Four years later he successfully waged another campaign for the presidency, defeating the incumbent President Harrison. The second presidential administration of Cleveland was fraught with difficulties. The financial panic of 1893 caused a controversy between factions favoring the free coinage of silver and those advo cating the gold standard; Cleveland belonged to the latter grou p and pushed to repeal the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which had provided for an increase in the purchase of silver. The following year workers of the Pullman Parlor Car Company staged a STRIKE, causing a stoppage of the delivery of the U.S. mail. Cleveland viewed this as sufficient reason to dispatch federal troops to intercede. Cleveland’s decisions in the silver crisis and the PULLMAN STRIKE earned him great disfavor. He was strong in foreign policy, however, and staunchly opposed force by Britain in that country’s boundary dispute with Venezuela. At the end of his second term in 1896, Cleveland settled in Princeton, New Jersey, where he spent the remainder of his years in retirement. In 1904 he wrote Presidential Problems, which attempted to explain his views on many of the controversial issues of his administration. Cleveland died June 24, 1908, in Princeton. Grover Cleveland. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ▼▼ ▼▼ Stephen Grover Cleveland 1837–1908 1850 1825 1875 1900 1925 ◆◆◆◆◆◆◆ ◆ ❖❖ 1837 Born, Caldwell, N.J. 1859 Established law practice in Buffalo 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1863–66 Served as assistant district attorney of Erie County 1870–73 Served as sheriff of Erie County 1882 Elected governor of New York 1881 Elected mayor of Buffalo 1884 Elected as 22nd U.S. president 1888 Defeated for reelection by Benjamin Harrison 1892 Defeated Harrison, became 24th president 1893 Financial panic led to four-year depression 1897 Retired to Princeton, N.J. 1908 Died, Princeton, N.J. 1914–18 World War I THOUGH THE PEOPLE SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT , THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT SUPPORT THE PEOPLE . —GROVER CLEVELAND GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CLEVELAND, STEPHEN GROVER 463 FURTHER READINGS Bordsky, Alyn. 2000. Grover Cleveland: A Study in Character. New York: Truman Talley. Graff, Henry F. 2002. Grover Cleveland. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Jeffers, Paul S. 2002. An Honest President: The Life and Presidencies of Grover Cleveland. New York: Harper Perennial. CLIENT A person who employs or retains an attorney to represent him or her in any legal business; to assist, to counsel, and to defend the individual in legal proceedings; and to appear on his or her behalf in court. This term includes a person who divulges confidential matters to an attorney while pursuing professional assistance, regardless of subsequent employment of the attorney. This attorney-client relationship is quite complex and extensive in its scope. One of the key aspects of this relationship is confidentiality of communications. A client has the right to require that his or her attorney keep secret any discussion between them during the course of their relationship that pertains to the matters for which the attorney is hired. This protection extends to a person who might have disclosed any confidential matters while seeking aid from an attorney, whether the attorney was employed or not. If, for example, someone is “shopping” for an attorney to handle a DIVORCE, the person might reveal certain private information to several attorneys, all of whom are expected to keep such communications confidential. CROSS REFERENCE Attorney-Client Privilege. CLIENT SECURITY FUNDS State funds that compensate clients of attorneys who have stolen their money. Monies for these funds come from attorney registration and bar association fees. The PRACTICE OF LAW requires lawyers to hold money in trust that is legally owned by their clients. Lawyers often receive checks on behalf of their clients, whether as part of a jury award, an insurance SETTLEMENT, a workers’ compensa- tion award, or any number of legal and financial transactions. For attorneys who are in financial difficulties there is a temptation to dip into client funds. Such behavior is both unlawful and a violation of the canons of professional conduct. Victims of such FRAUD usually cannot recover their money from the attorney, as the attorney is typically bankrupt. In response, states have established CLIENT SECURITY FUNDS to pay claims based on the misappropriation of client funds. In 1959, the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA) called on state bar associations to establish client SECURITY funds. During the 1960s many states established such funds and, by 2000, 49 states and the District of Columbia had established client security funds. In 1981, the ABA developed model rules for such funds. These rules were amended in 1989 as the Model Rules for Lawyers’ Funds for Client Protection. States generally follow the model rules but are free to make their own modifications. The use of trust account overdraf t notification, record keeping, and random AUDIT rules have helped discourage attorneys from believing that they can use client funds, even temporarily, for their own purposes. A key feature of client security funds is the funding mechanism: A portion of an attorney’s annual registration or BAR ASSOCIATION fee is allocated to the fund. A victim of misappropri- ation files a claim with a client security board, which is made up of lawyers and nonlawyers. The board reviews each claim and determines under its rules how much of the claim it can pay. Client security fun d rules specify a maxi- mum amount a victim may be compensated, which, in serious cases, means that victims will not be fully compensated. Client security boards have discovered that lawyers who steal money often steal it from a number of clients, leading to multiple claims. Client security funds cannot be used to pay clients who have alleged lawyer MALPRACTICE.In those situations a client must file a civil lawsuit to seek compensation. Likewise, client security boards do not consider fee disputes. CROSS REFERENCE Legal Malpractice. v CLIFFORD, CLARK MCADAMS Clark McAdams Clifford was a prominent Washington, D.C., attorney who served as an adviser to every Democratic president from HARRY S. TRUMAN to JIMMY CARTER. He was White GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 464 CLIENT House counsel to President Truman, personal lawyer to JOHN F. KENNEDY, and secretary of defense under LYNDON B. JOHNSON. Later his reputation suffered seriously with his involve- ment in a scandal over the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Clifford was born on December 25, 1906, in Fort Scott , Kansas, and spent his childhood in St. Louis. He entered Washington University, in St. Louis, in September 1923. In the fall of 1925, after two years as an undergraduate, he entered the university’s law school. He received his law degree in 1928 and practiced law in St. Louis until entering the navy in 1944. Lieutenant Clifford began his career of public service in 1945 as a naval aide to President Truman. In 1946 he became special counsel to the president. Clifford played an important role in the birth of the national security system. He helped draft legislation creating the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and worked with others in the Truman administration to establish the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), the U.S. Air Force, and the NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL . Clifford had been associated with Kennedy since Kennedy’s days as a congressman and senator. After Kennedy’s election to the presi- dency in 1960, Clifford assisted in the transi- tion, helping pick members of the cabinet and other important high government officials. He also served as a personal legal adviser to President Kennedy and his family. During the Johnson administration Clifford advised the president on matters of foreign policy. Clifford served as secretary of defense from March 1968 to January 1969. During his short tenure at the Pentagon he was the leader of an influential group of officials who persuaded Johnson to de-escalate the VIETNAM WAR . He argued that the burden of fighting should be transferred from the U.S. troops to South Vietnamese forces as quickly as possible. As the years went by Clifford rose in status as an influential elder statesman. Several years after most would have begun enjoying their retirement, the 70-year-old Clifford was advis- ing President Carter on foreign policy issues, as he continued his work with the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and high govern ment officials. Despite his long-standing prominence at the top levels of government, Clifford’s later years were consumed with a scandal surrounding ▼▼ ▼▼ Clark McAdams Clifford 1906–1998 19501950 19751975 20002000 19251925 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1906 Born, Fort Scott, Kans. 1914–18 World War I 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ ❖ ◆ 1928 Earned J.D. from Washington Univ. Law School 1945–46 Served as naval aide to President Truman 1946–50 Served as special counsel to Truman 1950–68 Practiced law as senior partner at Clifford & Miller 1969–91 Practiced law as senior partner at Clifford & Miller 1968–69 Served as secretary of defense under President Johnson 1972 BCCI founded by Aga Hassan Abedi 1998 Died, Bethesda, Maryland 1993 Federal charges dropped; Altman acquitted of state charges 1992 With Altman, charged with fraud and comspiracy 1991 Counsel to the President published Clark McAdams Clifford. AP/WORLD WIDE PHOTOS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION CLIFFORD, CLARK MCADAMS 465 BCCI. BCCI was founded in 1972 by Aga Hassan Abe di, a Pakistani financier who retired in 1990 owing to health problems. From the start, BCCI officials had grandiose dreams of the organization becoming a worldwide finan- cial power, the equal of large Western banks but with special ties to developing countries. Unfortunately, the bank never had a great deal of capital and was always desperate for deposits. One of BCCI’s largest customers was the Gulf Group, a consortium of shipping companies. The Gulf Group made substantial deposits to BCCI in 1972, but began borrowing from BCCI heavily after that. By 1977, BCCI’s loans to the consortium had become so large that Gulf Group accounts were transferred from BCCI’s London office to its Cayman Islands subsidiary to avoid British limits on the amount the bank could lend to individual customers. This deception eventually grew to involve approxi- mately 750 accounts and a special department within the bank dedicated to carrying out the subterfuge. To cover its losses, the bank apparently resorted to a variety of schemes such as using deposits from other customers to make interest payments on delinquent loans. To add needed capital, BCCI lent money to its existing shareholders to buy more stock. The purchases artificially inflated the stock price, thereby giving the appearance of increased capitaliza- tion, but BCCI was only investing its depositors’ money in the bank. On July 5, 1991, banking regulators in seven countries—the Cayman Islands, France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States—seized the assets of BCCI, charging that the bank had engaged in wide- spread fraud over a number of years. The SEIZURE set off a worldwide investigation that touched several U.S. government agencies, some leading figures in Washington, D.C.—most notably, Clifford—and individuals in several other agencies. The collapse of BCCI had tremendous repercussions throughout the world. In the United States, the main issue was whether the federal government had made sufficient efforts to investigate BCCI prior to its seizure in 1991. Various federal agencies had been interested in BCCI since the late 1980s. The CIA had prepared a report in 1986 alleging that BCCI was the owner of First American Bankshares, a major Washington bank. In 1989, the CIA prepared a report that alleged possible criminal activities conducted by BCCI, including MONEY LAUNDERING. Questions remained about what the federal government knew of BCCI’s illegal activities and when it became aware of them. Clifford was chairman of First American and his law partner Robert Altman was president. First American was allegedly acquired in 1982 by a group of Middle Eastern investors who were using BCCI money, but Clifford and Altman said they believed that the investors were acting on their own. From 1982 to 1991, Clifford had assured federal regulators on several occasions that BCCI had no connection with First American. On August 13, 1991, both men resigned their posts at First American. In September, Clifford testified before the House Banking Committee that he had been duped by BCCI and had not known that it had owned the controlling interest in First American during the nine years that he ran the bank. On July 29, 1992, Clifford and Altman were indicted simultaneously by federal and New York state grand juries on charges of conspiring to DEFRAUD the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD by con- cealing the role of BCCI in acquiring U.S. banks. At the heart of the case were allegations of an elaborate scheme by BCCI to expand illegally into the United States by purchasing First American and acquiring National Bank of Georgia. Again, Clifford and Altman assured federal, as well as state, regulators that the group of Middle Eastern investors who purchased First American in 1982 had no ties to BCCI, and insisted that they believed the group had acted on its own. Nevertheless, Clifford and Altman were aware of BCCI’s attempts to purchase other banks. In fact, both men represented BCCI when it first attempted to acquire U.S. banks in the late 1970s, and in a series of transactions in the 1980s, the two allegedly made a profit of nearly $10 million on First American stock that they purchased with loans from BCCI and later sold at a much higher price to a buyer who reportedly was subsidized by BCCI. Following the two indictments, federal and state prosecutors tangled in a complex legal procedural drama about where or when the two would be tried. In September 1992 the federal trial was postponed, thereby allowing the New York state prosecution to proceed. But then the state trial was delayed as Clifford’s lawyers tried to have the charges dropped because Clifford POLITICS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT … IT’S THE LUBRICANT THAT KEEPS THINGS RUNNING SMOOTHLY . —CLARK CLIFFORD GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 466 CLIFFORD, CLARK MCADAMS was in poor health. Clifford, age 86, eventually underwent quadruple bypass heart surgery, on March 22, 1993. On March 30, 1993, the state tri al of Altman began in a Manhattan courtroom. The prose- cution alleged that Altman had participated in an elaborate scheme of deceit to help BCCI gain a foothold in the U.S. banking system. Altman countered that federal regulators were making him a scapegoat to deflect criticism of their own failings in the BCCI affair. On April 7, federal prosecutors asked the judge to dismiss the charges against Clifford and Altman. Clifford’s physical condition made it questionable that he would be able to stand trial and it was impossible for him to assist his attorneys in preparation for trial. The judge agreed and formally dismissed the federal charges against Clifford and Altman . On August 14, a state court jury found Altman not guilty on four counts. Of the original eight FELONY charges, the judge had dismissed four during the trial, leaving the jury to deliberate on one count of scheming to defraud and three counts of filing false docu- ments. During the trial the prosecution offered only CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, failing to prove that Altman was aware of BCCI’s illegal activities. After the state court acquittal, and with Clifford’s health still precarious, efforts to PROSECUTE the BCCI case in the United States ended, although it continued in other countries. No one can say for certain what happened to the $12 billion in missing depositors’ funds. About one million people who lost money live in third-world countries and England. In England, depositors were expected to receive a return of 30 to 40 cents on the dollar; third- world depositors even less. In 1996 in an interview conducted by CNN as part of its 24-part documentary on the COLD WAR , Clifford discussed a number of topics including President Truman’s reaction to Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech, the Truman Doctrine, the MARSHALL PLAN, the blockade of West Berlin, and U.S. strategy during the Cold War. Clifford died at age 91 on October 10, 1998, in Bethesda, Maryland. In 2001, he was portrayed by actor Donald Sutherland in HBO’s Path to War, a retelling of Lyndon Johnson’s involvement in Vietnam. FURTHER READINGS Clifford, Clark M., with Richard Holbrooke. 1991. Counsel to the President: A Memoir. New York: Random House. Frantz, Douglas, and David McKean. 1995. Friends in High Places: The Rise and Fall of Clark Clifford. New York: Little, Brown. “Oral History Interviews with Clark M. Clifford.” 1971– 1973. Independence, MO: Harry S. Truman Library. v CLIFFORD, NATHAN Nathan Clifford was an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1858 to 1881. A traditional Jacksonian Democrat strongly disposed to favor states’ rights, Clifford served on a Court that in his later career was largely dominated by Republicans. As a result, one-fifth of all his writing for the Court was made up of dissents: Clifford opposed centralization of power in the federal government at a time when the Court was moving toward expansion of federal authority; he was a Northerner who often sided with Southern democrats on issues related to SLAVERY; and he advocated a conservative inter- pretation of the Constitution. Clifford also served as attorney general of the United States from 1846 to 1848 and as a negotiator in the Mexican War. As the negotiator, he successfully procured a treaty with Mexico that added a huge amount of land to the southwestern part of the United States. Clifford was born August 18, 1803, in Rumney, New Hampshire, the oldest child and only son in a family with seven children. His English ancestors had moved to the United States in 1644. As a child he worked on his family’s small farm in New Hampshire. Although his parents did not encourage him to attend school he was able to receive some education at Haverhill Academy, where he earned his tuition tutoring and giving singing lessons to younger children. He hoped to attend Dartmouth College butthatprovedimpossiblewhenhisfatherdied. Ever ambitious, Clifford persuaded a local lawyer, Josiah Quincy, to take him on as an apprentice. He learned enough of the law to pass the bar in 1827 and moved to Newfield, Maine, where he opened a law office. Most of his legal work involved land claim disputes related to the lumber business. In 1830, at age 27, Clifford was elected to Maine’s House of Representative s on the Democratic ticket, quickly rising to Speaker of the House in 1833. Beginning in 1834 he served four years as state attorney general. During that EQUALITY OF POLITICAL RIGHT IS VALUELESS AS A THEORY , UNLESS IT BE PRESERVED IN PRACTICE . —NATHAN CLIFFORD GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CLIFFORD, NATHAN 467 . WE’RE SAYING TODAY IS THAT YOU ’RE EITHER PART OF THE SOLUTION OR YOU ’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM . —LEROY CLEAVER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 458 CLEAVER, LEROY ELDRIDGE Korea,. working for a judge to aid in the writing and research of the cases before the judge. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 4 62 CLERICAL ERROR v CLEVELAND, STEPHEN GROVER Grover Cleveland. JIMMY CARTER. He was White GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 464 CLIENT House counsel to President Truman, personal lawyer to JOHN F. KENNEDY, and secretary of defense under LYNDON